My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
APPCOR11208
DRMS
>
Back File Migration
>
Application Correspondence
>
1000
>
APPCOR11208
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/24/2016 6:31:36 PM
Creation date
11/19/2007 2:18:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1996084
IBM Index Class Name
Application Correspondence
Doc Name
LORENCITO CANYON MINE PR EXHIBIT 2
Media Type
D
Archive
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• which is appazently the R. The Division has no preference on which seam name is used as <br />long as it is consistent on all permit materials. Please correct and/or clarify. <br />Re~onse <br />The R and C seam are the same while the P and P seam aze different. The Geology Map <br />2.04.6-2 has been corrected to show the R seam as the Ciruela and the I seam as the Primero <br />throughout the map. <br />39. Why aze there substantial differences in the zero contour on Overburden Thickness map G-l <br />and the coal outcrop of the Ciruela seam on map G-2? Should this line not be identical on <br />both maps? Why is no overburden depicted over much of the azea to be surface mined? <br />o se <br />The Ciruela outcrop and the topographic map of the site were plotted within the Surfer <br />softwaze program. The Ciruela outcrop was subtracted from the surface topography and map <br />G-1 generated. However, the program did not plot the overburden accurately in some <br />locations. Map G-1 has been corrected to show the accurate overburden thickness across the <br />site. <br />40. The Geology Map depicts the surface elevation of MW-2 as 7378 feet but the lithologic log <br />• indicates 7440 feet. Which is coaect? <br />Response <br />The surface elevation of MW-2 is correct on the Geologic Map (2.04.6-2) The elevation <br />depicted on the lithologic logs was prior to the wells being surveyed. The correct elevation <br />is shown on the logs in Exhibit 6, page G-1-28 through G-1-36. <br />41. The Geology Map depicts the surface elevation of MW-3 as 7684 feet but the lithologic lop <br />indicates 7640 feet. Which is correct? <br />~2esponse <br />The surface elevation of MW-3 is correct on the Geologic Map. The elevation depicted on <br />the lithologic logs was prior to the wells being surveyed. The correct elevation is shown on <br />the logs in Exhibit 6, pages G-1-37 through G-1-44. <br />42. The Geology Map depicts the surface elevation of BH-1 as 7238 feet but the lithologic log <br />indicates 7320 feet. Which is correct? Also, the location as spotted on the map would <br />approximate the elevation as 7388 feet. Please clarify. <br />C J <br />12 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.